You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I think there are a whole lot of people confusing criticism with censorship and there are a lot of people on the right that crusade for the censorship they claim to hate.

That's why when the non-PC/extreme jingosim/unhinged triggered conservatives that are running around clutching their pearls thinking they will do whatever they can to piss off the left (and more often than not we don't care) is a good strategy, I have to shake my head. I feel like saying - let me know when you're ready to have a rational conversations because I'm not seeing a capacity for one at the moment. This doesn't mean the left isn't guilty of the same kinds of things but I don't need to have a conversation with them. You don't make peace with your allies.

Would that that were true, Ceeddit!

(Ceeddit is my new nickname for you Ceecee, happy international womans day )

That's easier said than done and here is the main problem with the distinction you had in mind. Each time you call upon the government to facilitate anything, they wil find the incentive to engage in the acts of control. Bureaucrats have something in common with the businesspeople: they respond to incentives. If politicians learn that they can create jobs for their political supporters by "facilitating" issues, they'll soon get around to creating nearly total boondoggle that serves no purpose other than that of handing out political favors to their cronies.

Corporations do the same thing, and I have even less influence over them. I see a main job of government as checking the power of other entities in society that are in a position to constrain my behavior.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

While we can confidently say that government regulations on food safety do more good than harm, can we truly say the same about health-care? Look at how Obamacare ended up being coopted by the lobbyists representing the pharmaceutial companies.

I'm sure there are helpful and counterproductive regulations in every aspect of society that the government regulates. That reality is not a condemnation of regulation as a whole, any more than the inevitable buggy apples mean we should do away with orchards.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

In general, when the government tries to make anything affordable, prices tend to skyrocket. The reason for it is simple: the government tends to either subsidize certain goods or services or distribute funds to consumers. In response to both scenarios, business operatives quickly discover that they no longer have as much of an incentive to keep their products affordable.

Under normal circumstances, businesses are looking to keep their prices fairly low in order to create a larger customer base. Yet, when the government forces the consumer's hand to buy their product, it becomes obvious to them that they can still make their sales without respecting the consumer's preference for a lower price. That is exactly what happened with ACA.

The same is to be said for government intervention in Federal Student loans. It's worth noting that the Carter administration founded the Department of Education in the late 70s and since then, the ranks of various bureaucrats in universities have been expanding rapidly.

I did not make a case for government fixing prices.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

The costs of college education have started to rise exponentially right around the time when the university executives began receiving enormous sums of tax-payers' money. In return, they raised the costs of formal education in ways that didn't benefit the general public. It would have been understandable if the funds were invested into the process of hiring the most qualified of instructors and "facilitating" the student experience in other ways, but that isn't what happened. The tuition rates are going up so the Deans and Deanlets can be paid an obscene sum of money for doing a sinecure job and so the university can push a political agenda.

Why did the university do this? Because they can. That's the reason why the insurance corporations will raise prices if they now they can do so without losing customers. That is exactly what happens when the government tries to "facilitate" just about anything on behalf of the consumer. In reality, they only help the giants of the industry to raise their prices without offering anything of additional value to their buyers.

So why does this work in Europe, then? I would be satisfied to have a system like, say, in Germany.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

There are cases where the private means did not solve the problem, but the government made it much much worse. The case of student loans and ACA are the cases in point where government intervention merely made the products in question more expensive.

See above. No remedies, policies, or actions will ever be perfect because people are imperfect. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, though.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

In light of this, it makes more sense of the public to work with local and small-time officials who are not beyond scrutiny and cannot hide behind a massively funded PR team. That way, the politicians' capacity for deception should diminish.

This is true, and an often overlooked reality of the political landscape.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

More often than not, the government makes it more difficult for individuals to solve their problems. Politicians are more beholden to lobbyists, special interest groups and their immediate political allies than the voters. To secure the loyalty of the voters, all they need to do is tell pleasant sounding lies once every couple to a few years. On the other hand, they'll need to please the more powerful game players on a much more regular basis and the interests of these coalitions are typically at odds with that of the general public.

Yes, this is why we have the home-owners' associations, grassroots coaltions and various collectives that are meant to solve a particular social problem, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, for instance. This is quite frequent and we see thousands of such small associations all across America.

Homeowner associations don't solve a problem, they are a problem. Government - whether local, state, or federal - needs to place some limits on their ability to restrict individual actions and put their noses into private business.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

I'd strongly advise you to re-think that statement.

And I would advise you not to assume that, because I disagree with you, I have not given the matter adequate thought.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

In the 1930s, the prohibition of alcohol resulted in windfall profits for the organized crime syndicates. Today, we're seeing a similar phenomenon with the war on drugs. On the other hand, states that have taken steps toward legalizing certain narcotics have made great strides in reducing the wealth and power of drug cartels.

Each time the government prohibits a certain good or a service, it creates a vibrant black-market economy that brutalizes the very same buyers the government is supposed to protect.

Strawman. I spoke about the government prohibiting not goods or services, but infringement on individual liberties by other entities, namely lower levels of government and corporations.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

We need the national defense and the police force. Yet, when the government tries to promote "ethics, honesty and fairness" in business, they tend to achieve the opposite of what they intended to do. Look at what happened with the rent-controls in New York and Boston.

Strawman. "Ethics, honesty, and fairness" is not about price fixing. It is about truth in advertising, prohibiting deceptive and pressure tactics, cleaning up the messes they make, and keeping their word/contracts.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

See the sources I cited earlier in this post. If you cut student loans, the universities will not be able to take their students for granted. In other words, they will need to charge the kinds of prices that their buyers can reasonably afford to pay. That is, students will take out smaller loans for reasonable sums of money and universities will need to respect this reality. That means that prices will go down.

Right now, they are exploiting the fact that students are willing to pay just about any price, regardless of how little value they get in return. This will no longer be the case when student loans become harder to access.

The students I know don't want alot of loans, and so go to state schools, or work to save money. Some don't go to college at all because of the cost. The very wealthy can simply pay the tuition. The very poor get need-based financial aid. Everyone else in the middle is squeezed, with limited choices, or huge debt. Perhaps what you are noting is regional. As I mentioned above, we need more of a German model for higher ed, including more opportunities for vocational training, apprenticeships, etc. Not everyone needs to go to college.

Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker

Coriolis already addressed this. It's one thing to try to forbid someone from making an offensive statement, but it is another to vocally disapprove and take offense to it.

The right is boycotting the NFL and various films they deem objectionable, yet the PC radicals tend to physically assault their ideological opponents. Surely, we'd all find it preferable if the hard left merely boycotted the conservative speakers instead of doing what they do now.

Really? Heather Heyer wasn't killed by a "leftist".

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Corporations do the same thing, and I have even less influence over them.

There is only so much power that corporations can buy and they are the most destructive when they closely affiliate with the government. The problem is not the government or the corporations in isolation from one another, it's that the two can easily collude against the public interest.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

I see a main job of government as checking the power of other entities in society that are in a position to constrain my behavior.

That is broadly compatible with the Classical Liberal position that the government is responsible for maintaining the judiciary system, providing defense against foreign enemies and for enforcing the law.

Yet, the left often calls for the government to go far beyond what can reasonably be called "checking the power of other entities in society that are in the position to constrain my behavior".

There is also a great deal of equivocation about what constraint means, as many proponents of political correctness insist that anyone who relays "offensive" views constrains our behavior by inflicting irreparable emotional harm upon us.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

I'm sure there are helpful and counterproductive regulations in every aspect of society that the government regulates. That reality is not a condemnation of regulation as a whole, any more than the inevitable buggy apples mean we should do away with orchards.

Before regulations can become effective, we need to solve the problem of political corruption in the form of the kind of lobbying that borders on bribery.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

So why does this work in Europe, then? I would be satisfied to have a system like, say, in Germany.

Their score on transparency International is 80/100, while ours is 75 and falling.

That is partly why we have an out of control lobbying problem, which is much less severe there. As a result, the university bureaucrats cannot as easily enrich themselves at the tax-payer's expense while offering next to nothing in return.

Another reason is that their social politics are not as vicious. Yes, they have their own version of vicious political correctness which engenders repressive censorship, but there is one fundamental difference between their collegiate culture and ours. Our PC centers on the theme of over-protection of the youth and the self-esteem movement, which is a uniquely Anglo-American phenomenon. Furthermore, American social values are much more egalitarian than that of Germany, which can be immediately traced to the nation's aristocract heritage.

Hence, the executives of German universities are not under nearly as much pressure to accommodate incompetent students. Their institutions of higher education have a rigorous filtering system that was put in place to avoid exactly the kind of a problem we have all across our campuses. As I've mentioned in the OP, many prestigious four year universities admit as many as two-thirds of their students. This would have been unthinkable in Germany.

So, three reasons.

1. Cleaner political culture

2. No self-esteem movement and helicopter parenting

3. Commitment to rigorous academic standards

Although Germany has a better system of education and in many ways, their government is able to serve the public good in ways that ours cannot, their citizens paid a steep, if not an excessive price for this outcome.

The GDP per capita in the United States is approximately $57,000, but it is only $41,000 in Germany.

Moreover, although Germany's Middle Class is larger, the members of the lower middle class in the U.S often live better than the average German citizen.

Originally Posted by City Lab

The United States’ smaller middle income group still earns more than almost all its Western European counterparts. The average disposable income among middle income Americans in 2010 was $60,884, placing it comfortably ahead of Norway, which averaged $56,960. The one exception to Western Europe’s income trends was Luxembourg. The 575,000-citizen state boasted a considerably higher average middle income of $71,799, far ahead of any other state surveyed.

This becomes quite obvious in light of the various amenities that even the struggling Americans take for granted. In order to be considered a member of the Middle Class in most parts of the U.S, you need to earn about $30,000 per year. With that income, you can comfortably afford a fairly spacious 1-2 bedroom apartment, an automobile, electronics and still have a little bit of spare income to pursue recreational activities. On the other hand, most Germans live in comparatively small spaces, rely on public transportation and generally can't afford to splurge on recreational activities as much as the Americans do. There is a reason for this: Germans have less disposable income than the Americans, which is partly because of their bloated bureaucracies, burdensome regulations and other impediments to the generation of wealth within the country.

This is the fundamental problem with the statist approach to the economy that you're advocating, it eventually leads to the general decline in the nation's collective wealth. At that point, it will no longer matter how evenly you try to distribute it, the ranks of the poor will increase. The best you could do is make nearly everyone equally poor, which is what happens in the true socialist states, but the Germans were not willing to sink that low. So, they accepted the nearly inevitable: the expansion of their underclass.

Originally Posted by City Lab

But it’s not all good news in Europe. Germany and Finland may be regularly cited as examples of strong economic performance and good governance, but the report shows that these countries’ middle income tiers have shrunk at a far greater rate than it has in the U.S., with the lower income tier also growing far more sharply.

It is very much worth noting that despite their government's transparency and ability to serve the public, their middle class is shrinking much faster than ours is. Again, the reason for it is straight-forward: the key to upholding the middle class is by generating more wealth. Regardless of how prosperous the elites become, there is only so much they can squirrel away into their Swiss bank accounts and the wealth does not need to "trickle down". When the overall level of prosperity of the nation increases, the average citizens will play a part in the newly revitalized economy and they will be to independently raise their own standards of living without waiting for wealth to "trickle down".

On the other hand, when levels of prosperity decline, no amount of distribution will stop a sizable portion of the populace from falling into destitution.

As a reflection of this pattern, it's worth noting that the U.S received a score of 10/10 on income, while Germany only scored a 5/10. The explanation is obvious: one reason the American middle class is shrinking is that more people are joining the upper eschelons of "Middle America".

Even the left-leaning Quartz had to acknowledge that the majority of Americans who left the middle class have moved up the socio-economic ladder, not down.

Furthermore, the NPR went so far as to assert that two-thirds of Americans who left the middle class have moved up.

Originally Posted by THE NP

Nonetheless, the overall trend is upward: The middle class may be shrinking, but two-thirds of those who leave have moved up, while one-third have dropped to a lower income group.

Originally Posted by Quartz

The American economy is more unequal than it was in the 1970s, but this is because more households have joined the ranks of the upper-middle and upper classes than have fallen into the lower-middle and lower income classes

As for Housing, the U.S scored an 8.7/10, while Germany only received a 7.1/10. Again, the explanation is clear: with less disposable income, Germans cannot afford to reside in fairly spacious conditions that Americans take for granted.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

See above. No remedies, policies, or actions will ever be perfect because people are imperfect. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, though.

There is a steep price to pay for government solutions, as the contrast between the U.S and German economies reveals. Moreover, once a government program is put in place, it will likely outlive its intended purpose, if it ever had one to begin with. This is the problem with trusting bureucrats to "facilitate" anything: from the moment of its inception, the bureaucracy's main purpose is its own perpetuation at all cost and by any means necessary.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

Homeowner associations don't solve a problem, they are a problem.

Homeowners associations do solve problems and they often do so by applying the principles of the Broken Window theory of policing. The HoAs often penalize homeowners for even trivial of offenses, which creates an appearance of decorum, order and civility. In turn, criminals tend to think twice before breaking the law, as they are often under the impression that their behavior will be noticed and punished accordingly.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

put their noses into private business.

This will cost tax-payers tens of millions of dollars, it will halt economic growth and inevitably expand the ranks of the poor, which is what's happening in Germany and other countries where economic overregulation is common-place. Even more problematically, the giants of the overregulated industries will merge with the regulators and together, they will achieve regulatory capture by warping the majority of the regulations in favor of the industry leaders.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

Strawman. I spoke about the government prohibiting not goods or services, but infringement on individual liberties by other entities, namely lower levels of government and corporations.

Concrete examples?

Originally Posted by Coriolis

It is about truth in advertising, prohibiting deceptive and pressure tactics, cleaning up the messes they make, and keeping their word/contracts.

This is all part of the existing laws concerning fraud. There is no need to create tens of thousands new regulations that almost nobody reads, elementary law enforcement serves this purpose just fine.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

As I mentioned above, we need more of a German model for higher ed, including more opportunities for vocational training, apprenticeships, etc. Not everyone needs to go to college.

It's impossible for the four reasons I've stated at the very beginning of my response. For better or for worse, the United States will never be like Germany in this respect. Our universities will always be cesspools of mediocrity and vulgarity. That's the way it has always been, but lately, the proliferation of idiocy has become their raison d' etre.

Originally Posted by Coriolis

Really? Heather Heyer wasn't killed by a "leftist".

Now, that is a textbook example of a strawman.

Heather Heyer was killed in the heat of a physical confrontation between Antifa and the Alt-Right. Moroever, the Alt-Rightists did not initiate violence when they showed up. They procured a permit to assemble and promoted their message without physically harming anyone. The unseemly melee erupted only when Antifa and the BLM showed up with the specific purpose of attacking people who have not initiated physical aggression toward anyone.

Your comment would have been appropriate if Heather Hayer attended a feminist rally and then suddenly, Alt-Rights stormed the stage screaming "communists not welcome!' and proceeded to pick her apart. Yet, that is what Antifa does on a regular basis, which is a low that the Alt-Right has never stooped to.

"Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

Heather Heyer was killed in the heat of a physical confrontation between Antifa and the Alt-Right. Moroever, the Alt-Rightists did not initiate violence when they showed up. They procured a permit to assemble and promoted their message without physically harming anyone. The unseemly melee erupted only when Antifa and the BLM showed up with the specific purpose of attacking people who have not initiated physical aggression toward anyone.

Your comment would have been appropriate if Heather Hayer attended a feminist rally and then suddenly, Alt-Rights stormed the stage screaming "communists not welcome!' and proceeded to pick her apart. Yet, that is what Antifa does on a regular basis, which is a low that the Alt-Right has never stooped to.

James Fields, the man who described Nazi concentration camps with the phrase, "This is where the magic happened", now faces 10 indictments, including first-degree murder for plowing into Heather Heyer during the Charlottesville protests.

An attorney by the name of Roberta Kaplan and her team has collected thousands of hours of chats and videos created by Charlottseville defendants and online leaks — including white nationalist pundit Richard Spencer, rally organizer Jason Kessler, and Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website — that urged participants to prepare for and commit violence in Charlottesville.

From the "Unite the Right" organizers' Discord, prior to the protests:

●“You have a week, bros. Best spend it having four or five of your friends simulate jumping you. Go light, don’t get injured before the event, and focus on blocking and pushing back in ways that don’t look like assault.”

● “I’m ready to crack skulls.”

● “Let’s make this channel great again. The Carolinas (kind of) started the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, so why not add the Race War / Second Civil War to the list?”

● An image of a raised fist holding a dagger by its blade, dripping blood, over the words “FIGHT UNTIL THE LAST DROP.”

From the Daily Stormer’s website:

● “We are going to build an invisible empire. This has all been worked out in my mind a long time ago, and this summer, the Summer of the Black Sun, is when we are going to bring it all together.”

● One defendant tweeted: “If you want to defend the South and Western civilization from the Jew and his dark-skinned allies, be at Charlottesville on 12 August.”

Up until now I would have regarded Solitary Walker as an actual liberal archetype, its so surprising to see all the support for these sorts of causes and initiatives coming from that source and it makes me wonder if this should effect the way I think about all his earlier posts, like I mean all the longer posts about philosophy are perhaps just like that neckbeard guy who spoke to the journalist in pretty rambling speech about Kant and Donald Trump before the election or perhaps it was at the time of the election win.

It just goes to show that you can imagine you have a picture of someone online and it can be really, really wrong.

Talking about some kind of Socialism wave is America is simply wrong in my opinion. However this is the case since American right wing likes to accuse everyone they dislike as Socialists. While at the other hand some young people in their rebellion have decided to use some kind of far left iconography, but calling them socialists or leftist is simply wrong. Which is because it seems that American people can't tell the difference between liberals and real left (aka Communists), which are totally different kind of people with very different values. In America liberals are the left part of the spectrum but American politics ends somewhere at mild left if you watch full spectrum globally. In other words in my opinion America has no real left and it's left is more of a center (aka Liberals). Also I am pretty sure that the entire liberal wing of this forum would actually be uncomfortable living in my country since the place would be too economically left for them.

To be concrete: My full scolarship is payed by the government 100%, as a student my healtcare is fully payed by the government, we pay 120% tax on car fuel, I get subventuions for public transportation, I buy my food in a supermarket chain that is under direct control of the government (and orginal owner is hidding in exile in London), new highway system was build by the government over the last 15 years, our entire movie industry is funded by government, the biggest TV network in the country is owned by the government, our VAT tax is 25%, we get most of our energy from Russia which is then distributed through state run companies, government company picks my garbage 2 times a week, railways are under government control, education system is almost completely in the hands of the government, the biggest land owner is evidently the government that has companies and agencies that run the whole thing, we still have sports clubs that are owned or recieving money from the government, all ferry lines are under state control, telephone landlines are under the control of foreign government, there are no private prisons, guns are basically completely banned, there are laws that allow the government to confiscate your bank account, there are laws that protect people from loosin their homes to debt, some banks are even owned by the government, agriculture is reciving subventions ... etc.

Now to be honest I have never seen anyone here advocating anything close to this, not even close. Therefore I think that some people here are under the influence of propaganda and they can't tell a difference between liberalism and communism. Which are actually in conflict. Soros isn't a communist, he is a liberal since he is for private ownership and multi-culturalism, while communists wants state ownership and they don't really want multi-culturalism since they want to make everyone the same. They are even ready to step on religious people, rich people, and LGBT people which all want to have their own thing/worldview. However all of this is the consequence of the fact that America has no real left and therefore you get the people who debate issues based on propaganda, since they never had a conversation with real leftist. Since there is no such a thing in their environment. Soros is actually texbook example of what is in my part of the world known as "Capitalist pig" a billionare with questionable morals. Actually even what I just said about my country is still actually mixed system since the third of GDP is still private, while laws are still generally capitalistic. In other words my local left wants to push things even further left until we will have real textbook communism, but I don't see that kind of people here .

So if some eccentric collage profesor has some funny ideas that shouldn't necesary be called left, since the claims probably aren't radical enough and they are almost surely too liberal. Real communists aren't pro LGBT or open borders. As a matter of fact those eccentric collage profesor and liberal university courses are mostly exact consequnce of western mindest that allows people to express themsleves and have developed individual idenity. In the communist society government runs the whole show and they generally don't care about all those "creative" courses, like all the gender-peace studies. Which in my country aren't really recognized as something academic even if there are elements of that in courses like psychology or sociology. Which don't even exist on all universities in the country, since they are not needed that much. America tends to fails in socialist policies exactly since it is fundamentally individualistic society even in it is most collectivistic parts. Political corrupution is texbook example, using of public position or public money to make yourself or your frinds rich. Which is why collective initatives tend to fail in US, since the nation as it is can't function as one and everyone thinks that they have their own private interest, what in many many countries really isn't the case to such degree.

Therefore talking about some kind of leftists and socialism in America is ridiculous in my book.
As a matter of fact in my part of the world far left and nationalist forces are gathering in order to challange liberal and corporate/capitalist world order.

James Fields, the man who described Nazi concentration camps with the phrase, "This is where the magic happened", now faces 10 indictments, including first-degree murder for plowing into Heather Heyer during the Charlottesville protests.

An attorney by the name of Roberta Kaplan and her team has collected thousands of hours of chats and videos created by Charlottseville defendants and online leaks — including white nationalist pundit Richard Spencer, rally organizer Jason Kessler, and Andrew Anglin, founder of the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer website — that urged participants to prepare for and commit violence in Charlottesville.

All of this is interesting, but there are two fundamental issues here.

1. Did the Alt-Right leaders specifically encourage others to commit violence? In your passage, you've noted that they advised each other to be "prepared" for it in a general sense. Did it mean they were looking to become violent in self-defense to the attacks from Antifa they've anticipated or did they intend to initiate the bloodbath?

2. The indictment you've cited, the author made the following allegation. "In order to terrorize its residents, commit acts of violence"

Clearly, the evidence in support of this position seems insufficient. Otherwise, Spencer and company would have been in handcuffs by now.

I am still looking for evidence that the Alt-Right demonstrators committed violent acts prior to engaging with Antifa or that they intended to do so for purposes other than self-defense.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

To be honest I find this kinds of threads ridiculous.

Thank you for that unsolicited feedback

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Talking about some kind of Socialism wave is America is simply wrong in my opinion.

Socialism is a politico-economic system where the means of production are publicly owned. Explain to me where this was discussed in our thread.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

However this is the case since American right wing likes to accuse everyone they dislike as Socialists.

Evidence?

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

While at the other hand some young people in their rebellion have decided to use some kind of far left iconography, but calling them socialists or leftist is simply wrong.

You're the only one here discussing socialists. However, the PC radicals espouse left-wing views on a number of socio-political and economic issues. There are obvious differences between them and the centrists or their right-leaning opponents, so their commitment to leftism goes beyond the mere symbols and iconography.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Which is because it seems that American people can't tell the difference between liberals and real left (aka Communists), which are totally different kind of people with very different values.

Sure we can. Communist incorporates the socialist perspective of economics in the form of adherence to a command economy. Additionally, the communists typically pormote a totalitarian position on cultural issues and expect the citizenry to express an "ideologically correct" opinion. Communism is a totalitarian ideology in the strictest sense of the word, as communists expect the citizenry to undergo a profound change in their social consciousness. Lenin's conception of the "New Soviet Man" clearly represents this position.

While the PC radicals may have some totalitarian tendencies in the sense that they believe in using violence against their opponents and they intend to radically transform the American collective consciousness, many of their views are at odds with the communists. For example, the majority do not support a true command economy.

However, the part you're missing is that the difference between the PC radicals is a matter of intensity, not of the nature of the belief systems. On economics, the PC ideologues are center-left, while the communists are on the very far left. On methodology for causing social change, both are quite extreme, but the communists are willing to go much further in enforcing their decrees. Nonetheless, there are fundamental differences with regard to their beliefs about culture, as anti-discrimination activism and the demand for "social sensitivity" has never been part of the communist agenda.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

In America liberals are the left part of the spectrum but American politics ends somewhere at mild left if you watch full spectrum globally.

Correct and we'd like to keep it that way. This is one of the main reasons why the United States has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world and why we have not underwent a single coup d'etat since our revolution.

In large part because of the conservative nature of our polity, we have the world's oldest constitution which not only lays down the groundwork for political stability and prosperity, it provides our citizenry with a uniquely American right: that is the free to free expression, which is sanctioned by the First Amendment. Much of Europe routinely prosecutes people who utter politically incorrect opinions such as Ake Green, Paul Golding and Emma West, but no such abominations will be taking place in our country any time soon.

Nonetheless, the demand for public order has been rising lately and as the Millennial generation fully comes of age, conformity will be extolled at the expense of individualism. In other words, Free Speech will be under even more severe attack in the ensuing decades.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

In other words in my opinion America has no real left and it's left is more of a center (aka Liberals).

Yes, liberals are mostly a center-left party, but again, the majority of American conservatives are not as right-leaning as you imagine them to be. We still have our fair share of raving Maoist lunatics, but they are on the fringes, where they belonig.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Also I am pretty sure that the entire liberal wing of this forum would actually be uncomfortable living in my country since the place would be too economically left for them.

Good for them and what country is that?

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

To be concrete: My full scolarship is payed by the government 100%, as a student my healtcare is fully payed by the government,

Does your curriculum involve the study of the English language?

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

we pay 120% tax on car fuel,

Wonderful, I'd still would like to know what country you live in.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

I get subventuions for public transportation,

Word choice?

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

I buy my food in a supermarket chain that is under direct control of the government (and orginal owner is hidding in exile in London),

It must be a very tolerant nation that highly values freedom of expression. I mean my goodness, what sort of scumbag becomes a capitalist in the first place, right? He got his just deserts, didn't he?

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

new highway system was build by the government over the last 15 years,

Isn't this what FDR, Truman and Eisenhow have done for us as well?

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

our entire movie industry is funded by government, the biggest TV network in the country is owned by the government,

I trust that all of the content you're providing here has been approved by your government and that all of it is entirely devoid of ideological content.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

our VAT tax is 25%, we get most of our energy from Russia which is then distributed through state run companies,,

I trust that these state-run companies receive no special privileges and they would never betray the public's trust, especially when they are closely supervised by your nation's leading politicians.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

government company picks my garbage 2 times a week, railways are under government control, education system is almost completely in the hands of the government,

I trust that your government does this much more efficiently than any private companies would have in their place.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

the biggest land owner is evidently the government that has companies and agencies that run the whole thing,

Yep, absolutely no waste there and no cronyism whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

we still have sports clubs that are owned or recieving money from the government, all ferry lines are under state control, telephone landlines are under the control of foreign government, there are no private prisons, guns are basically completely banned, there are laws that allow the government to confiscate your bank account, there are laws that protect people from loosin their homes to debt, some banks are even owned by the government, agriculture is reciving subventions ... etc.

Sounds like utopia, so why is it that you think most of our PC radicals would not want to live in your country?

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Now to be honest I have never seen anyone here advocating anything close to this, not even close.

Yes, but in light of the fact that Millennials are becoming increasingly hostile to free speech and sympathetic to socialism, our countries may become more similar in the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Therefore I think that some people here are under the influence of propaganda and they can't tell a difference between liberalism and communism.

American liberalism is a center-left position which is moving further to the left, communism is on the radical end of that spectrum.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Soros isn't a communist, he is a liberal since he is for private ownership and multi-culturalism, while communists wants state ownership and they don't really want multi-culturalism since they want to make everyone the same.

No argument from me. In fact, I've previously stated that Soros espouses a center-left ideological orientation and he is a sincere believer in Popper's Open Society precept.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

They are even ready to step on religious people, rich people, and LGBT people which all want to have their own thing/worldview.

Also correct, but the PC zealots are willing to step on all of the people you've mentioned, except the LGBT alphabet soup.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

However all of this is the consequence of the fact that America has no real left and therefore you get the people who debate issues based on propaganda, since they never had a conversation with real leftist.

Don't we have enough of those people in universities now? Real leftists constitute less than 1% of the entire American citizenry, but at least 15% of the professors in the humanities fit the bill.

18% of social scientists are Marxists. Unless they fundamentally misunderstand what it means to be Marxist, which is a possibility that I will not rule out, Americans are becoming increasingly more likely to have conversations with "real leftists"

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Since there is no such a thing in their environment. Soros is actually texbook example of what is in my part of the world known as "Capitalist pig" a billionare with questionable morals.

Yes, that is what the PC left is and their children are spoiled schmucks who have no idea what it's like to be poor or to belong to any of the marginalized ethnic groups they claim to care for. There is a reason why minorities generally despise the Social Justice Warriors.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

So if some eccentric collage profesor has some funny ideas that shouldn't necesary be called left, since the claims probably aren't radical enough and they are almost surely too liberal.

Many of their worldviews are a "collage" of incongruous far-left dogmas including Maoism, Marxism, Guevarism and other worldviews that are sufficiently radical to be "necessary called left".

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Real communists aren't pro LGBT or open borders.

Correct, which is why I think we need to start a reality TV show where Social Justice Warriors get to spend a month in a truly socialist country.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

As a matter of fact those eccentric collage profesor and liberal university courses are mostly exact consequnce of western mindest that allows people to express themsleves and have developed individual idenity.

And ironically, much of the Millennial generation is ready to reject the tenet of free speech, which is the main source of nearly all privileges they now take for granted.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

In the communist society government runs the whole show and they generally don't care about all those "creative" courses, like all the gender-peace studies.

Correct and this is one reason why the USSR had a much stronger system of education than the U.S.

Originally Posted by Virtual ghost

Which in my country aren't really recognized as something academic even if there are elements of that in courses like psychology or sociology. Which don't even exist on all universities in the country, since they are not needed that much. America tends to fails in socialist policies exactly since it is fundamentally individualistic society even in it is most collectivistic parts. Political corrupution is texbook example, using of public position or public money to make yourself or your frinds rich. Which is why collective initatives tend to fail in US, since the nation as it is can't function as one and everyone thinks that they have their own private interest, what in many many countries really isn't the case to such degree. s.

I bet the Transparency International Index of Corruption Perception identifies your country as much more venal than ours.

Therefore talking about some kind of leftists and socialism in America is ridiculous in my book.
As a matter of fact in my part of the world far left and nationalist forces are gathering in order to challange liberal and corporate/capitalist world order.[/QUOTE]

"Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

All of this is interesting, but there are two fundamental issues here.

1. Did the Alt-Right leaders specifically encourage others to commit violence? In your passage, you've noted that they advised each other to be "prepared" for it in a general sense. Did it mean they were looking to become violent in self-defense to the attacks from Antifa they've anticipated or did they intend to initiate the bloodbath?

2. The indictment you've cited, the author made the following allegation. "In order to terrorize its residents, commit acts of violence"

Clearly, the evidence in support of this position seems insufficient. Otherwise, Spencer and company would have been in handcuffs by now.

I am still looking for evidence that the Alt-Right demonstrators committed violent acts prior to engaging with Antifa or that they intended to do so for purposes other than self-defense.

Regarding the underlined - the trial has yet to commence. An article was just published about it yesterday.

Regarding the bold - I'm not sure what more you want. The group rallied itself by saying things like "Next stop: Charlottesville; Final stop: Auschwitz." The implication is genocide. Mill would have filed the support of genocide under the category of speech that aims to harm people. Concerning Spencer's statements about "peaceful ethnic cleansing": even the original Nazis proposed an initial plan to relocate Jews to Madagascar. The plan fell through and gave way to what they considered to be "The Final Solution". Considering the fact that major Alt-Right figureheads practically marinate themselves in Nazi arcana, and I think Spencer knows the relevant history and they know that peace is incompatible with their goals. They know what the implications are, but rarely express them in overt terms. Often, it's what goes unsaid that holds the most gravity.

I don't think you can invoke Mill to defend speech that involves the intent to "bury" people, especially not in this context. I haven't finished On Liberty yet, but IIRC, he said that speech was permissible unless it advocated violence.